Obama moves on corporate-tax reform

posted at 11:00 am on February 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Corporate tax reform has long been an opportunity for a win-win bipartisan effort in Washington. Everyone agrees that the corporate code needs significant changes, if not a complete overhaul; it’s too complicated, too costly, and rewards the larger companies that can afford to analyze it for every possible benefit. Both parties have made corporate tax reform part of their plartforms, Democrats arguing that we need to close loopholes, Republicans that we need simplification and lower rates.

The Obama administration Wednesday will unveil a framework for reforming the corporate tax code that would lower the top rate from 35 percent to 28 percent but generate more total revenue by eliminating “dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies” and creating a minimum rate on foreign earnings.

The “global minimum tax” makes an appearance, along with a laughable pledge to pay for the rate reduction by — wait for it — “greater fiscal responsibility”:

The tax reform framework “eliminates dozens of different tax expenditures and fundamentally reforms the business tax base to reduce distortions that hurt productivity and growth. … It reinvests these savings to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment,” according to an administration official.

The official added that the framework “would refocus the manufacturing deduction and use the savings to reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent, while encouraging greater research and development and the production of clean energy.”

The framework would establish “a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to encourage domestic investment.” The proposal will be “fully paid for … to greater fiscal responsibility than our current business tax system by either eliminating or making permanent and fully paying for temporary tax provisions now in the tax code.”

“Greater fiscal responsibility”? Isn’t this the same White House that produced four trillion-dollar-plus budget deficits? Yeah, that will work out well.

James Pethokoukis takes a long look at the proposal, and declares that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner should resign for putting his name to it:

1. The Obama-Geithner plan would lower the statutory corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, currently the second-highest among advanced economies. But that would still leave the combined U.S. corporate tax rate — state and federal — at 32.2 percent, far above the OECD combined average of 25 percent. The U.S. combined rate would be a bit below slow-growing Japan and France but above the U.K. and Germany. That’s not nearly good enough. Canada just lowered its corporate tax rate, for instance, to 15 percent. So instead of having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, the U.S. would probably be fourth behind Japan, France and Belgium.

2. The Obama-Geithner plan would establish, according to the New York Times, a minimum tax on multinational corporations’ foreign earnings to discourage “accounting games to shift profits abroad” or actual relocation of production overseas.

So instead of a carrot, Corporate America gets the stick. Instead of lowering the U.S. rate to a competitive level, Obama would raise the penalty on keeping profits overseas. Indeed, the United States is a huge outlier in that it taxes the foreign profits of multinational companies. Here is Obama’s own Jobs Council:

While most other developed nations have adopted territorial systems that exempt most or all foreign income from taxes when they are repatriated, the U.S. subjects all worldwide earnings to the corporate income tax when they are brought home to the U.S. This approach actually encourages U.S. companies to keep their earnings abroad rather than investing them here at home. Adopting a territorial tax system would bring us in line with our trading partners and would eliminate the so-called “lock-out” effect in the current worldwide system of taxation that discourages repatriation and investment of the foreign earnings of American companies in the U.S.

James has plenty more to say, especially on the lack of understanding on the part of Obama and his team about basic economics. Who pays corporate taxes? Consumers and employees do.

However, from a political perspective, this may be even worse than its economics. For the second straight year, Obama has launched a major proposal while deliberately disregarding his own advisory panel’s recommendations. That turned into political disaster last year, when Obama’s budget ignored his own appointed deficit panel. His budget got voted down unanimously in a Senate controlled by his own party, making him look extreme and out of touch on budgetary issues.

Now his new corporate tax proposal ignores the recommendations from the panel Obama created to much fanfare last year as part of his focus on job creation and economic growth. The obvious conclusion is that Obama has prioritized punitive tax changes on American business in order to fund his spending expansion over economic growth. Republicans need to emphasize that Obama’s job council turned out to be nothing more than a smoke screen, just the same as Simpson-Bowles, and that this corporate tax “reform” is anything but.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

where were you, imbecile, when dadt was done away with and obama announced that his doj defend doma?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

yes, we all know he’s not opposed to it. it’s a charade but i couldn’t care less – his actions speak louder than his words.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

So based on your two posts we can say with certainty that you admit you have no idea exactly what Obama means either by his “actions” or what he says about DOMA,the economy, energy or anything else for that matter.Perhaps we should refer to him as President Clueless.

DOMA applies to heterosexuals, not gays. Repeal of DADT applies to the military. There is NO federal law allowing gay marriage. In case you have not noticed, the privilege of gay marriage licensing is reserved to the states currently.

Your inability to address the rest of my commentary effectively, as well as the others, is duly noted. They’ve noted your shortcomings as well.

again, it’s not free of charge, sweetie, it’s included in the plan individuals pay for.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Again, “sweety”, the “compromise” as outlined by HHS dictates that contraceptives be provided “free of charge”. Are you playing semantical games “sweety”? We all know nothing is free, but that has no relevance to this issue anyways. The relevant point s that employers who provide insurance to their employees ultimately pay for it. And when the employer is a Catholic organization they are being forced to violate their own conscious when paying for these plans.

Obluffer’s at it again. He means “reform” as in re-form, rearrange, regenerate as in close loopholes, lower rate here and, sleight-of-hand, raise rates over there, there, and there, where you’re not looking. And voilà, taxes are 30% higher than before his re-form.

DOMA applies to heterosexuals, not gays. Repeal of DADT applies to the military. There is NO federal law allowing gay marriage. In case you have not noticed, the privilege of gay marriage licensing is reserved to the states currently.

what are you blabbering about, cutiepie? doma and dadt were key issues for gay rights activist and obama delivered on his promise to them.

Your inability to address the rest of my commentary effectively, as well as the others, is duly noted. They’ve noted your shortcomings as well.

DevilsPrinciple on February 22, 2012 at 2:01 PM

going easier on the italics would help. also, too, i can’t correct every nonsense people write in reply to me. was there anything important you wrote that you’d like me to address?

Did you say the same thing when he Downgraded the rule of law and dictated that private insurance companies provide free services?
Chip on February 22, 2012 at 11:52 AM

stop embarrassing yourself. no insurance company is forced to provide free services.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Sesq: did you miss this from CNN:

[Updated at 12:23 p.m. ET] President Barack Obama announced a compromise Friday in the dispute over whether to require full contraception insurance coverage for female employees at religiously affiliated institutions.

Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

i know you didn’t give a flying fck when bush and his cronies were enthralled by the unitary executive theory, so spare me the outrage.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Yes, I remember all those mandates on products we must purchase coming out of the Bush administration without congressional approval. The arguments concerning presidential authority during the Bush years weren’t centered around foreign affairs and the power to make war at all…

insurance companies have to include contraception coverage in plans that people pay for themselves. why are you wasting my time?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

If you are talking about individual insurance, fine. But most folks get their insurance through their employer.

Very few companies require that the employee pay more than a small part of the cost of the premium. IN fact, under the new law, if they do require too large a payment from the employee, they get fined. Typically, employees contribute between 5-25% of the total cost of the insurance.

This ignores, like the government wants us to, the fact that these company provided contributions come at the expense of other salary.

But then, you seem to be ignoring the clear statement from the WH that the Insurance Companies would pay the difference in cost rather than the employer.

You really aren’t serious about this and I think you know the Obama administration is wrong about this, constitutionally speaking. So what conclusion can we draw? The conclusion I draw is that the Constitution is toilet paper to you and the only thing that matters is who is in power.

i can’t offer an expert opinion, but i do believe that it’s a step in the right direction. after all, romneycare is still very popular in MA.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Actually, polls from last summer placed those who favor the Mass. mandate just ahead of those how opposed 51-44. So very popular may be a stretch. But there may be newer info I missed.

Also, the same respondents were split 43-47 on whether RomneyCare should or should not be used as a national model with more thinking it should NOT.

But when less that 25% of those responding think it Helped the cost of healthcare, with a similar result for its helping the quality, that isn’t a surprise. More think it has driven the price up that down.

The conclusion I draw is that the Constitution is toilet paper to you and the only thing that matters is who is in power.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 3:21 PM

if i recall correctly, the constitution is quite unclear on the freedom of businesses, including those run by child rapists and their protectors, from providing contraception coverage in their employees plans.

if i recall correctly, the constitution is quite unclear on the freedom of businesses, including those run by child rapists and their protectors, from providing contraception coverage in their employees plans.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I think the only thing you can recall are your own personal feelings and bitterness and everything else be damned.

what if i’m a muslim and object to women mingling with men? am i forced to fund activities that tolerate and encourage this impurity? what if i’m a mormon – do i withhold my taxes from a government that prohibits polygamy?

Did anyone see Bill O’Reilly on Jay Leno last night? He said Obama is a very nice person, he knows because he has met him and and knows him personally.

mariee on February 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I gave up on B O’R. He is just dead-set on the fact that Obama is nice and well intentioned. It is willful ignorance and unbecoming of someone who is as intelligent as he is.

CycloneCDB on February 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Yep, Bill is just a moron and an embarrassment to Fox News. Unfortunately many think he is representative of Republicans and conservatives.

His latest mission is to inform us that, the horrors, -some oil companies are actually exporting refined petroleum products, ie gasoline, from the USA. He has discovered the notion of ‘supply and demand’, a good thing, but seems to want the oil companies to keep all excess gasoline inside the USA and thereby drive down prices. Even below their cost Bill?

The equally ignorant Lou Dobbs is with him on this. They think it’s a huge scandal that they are breaking wide open. In other news, manufacturing is still leaving the USA.

what if i’m a muslim and object to women mingling with men? am i forced to fund activities that tolerate and encourage this impurity? what if i’m a mormon – do i withhold my taxes from a government that prohibits polygamy?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Quite the non sequitur.

Here’s a counter offer.

I am not well versed in Islamic dietary law but lets say the mere fact that pork was in the kitchen is the one thing that makes the company Cafe unclean, and you WERE REQUIRED to pay Money each week to a Cafeteria fund that the company then paid 80% of. Yes I think you would have a complaint if they insisted on having pork. You may not have to use that cafe but you are having to pay for it.

Would YOU be OK with this? Would you be OK with it if it was required by the Feds of ALL businesses?

I have to think that you would be fine with it based on your other comments but I could be wrong.

However, I am no longer convinced that lowering the corporate tax rate a substantial amount would have much of any effect on the economy.

It would maybe make prices for goods and services a little less, but if they now know we’re willing to pay X amount as it is, why would they cut into their profit margin just to give the consumer a break?

We’re too dependent on both corporations and government-just the way it is.

all good wars must come to an end, congress was unwilling to close gitmo, and he changed his mind about the nyc trials.

you bore me.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Translated: “Del was right”.

President Obama came into office in January 2009, and two days after his inauguration, he signs his first executive order, calling for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay within one year.

Less than five months later, Congress — controlled by Democrats — votes overwhelmingly to neutralize that executive order, and to keep Gitmo open, by choking off the funds needed to enact the executive order by building new facilities, seeking deportations, etc. The vote in the Senate was 90 to 6.

I’m waiting for the first big, significant company to pack it in and leave the USA for greener pastures. Exxon would be welcomed to Canada with a ticker-tape parade and a national holiday. I believe it will begin if little Bammie is reelected. How will the proggies react? Will they want soldiers surrounding the corporation refusing to allow exit? Will they demand some kind of exit tax?

i can’t offer an expert opinion, but i do believe that it’s a step in the right direction. after all, romneycare is still very popular in MA.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Actually, polls from last summer placed those who favor the Mass. mandate just ahead of those how opposed 51-44. So very popular may be a stretch. But there may be newer info I missed.

OBQuiet on February 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM

I found one new poll-exactly one-from earlier this month that concluded that RomneyCare is popular, but haven’t had a chance to look at the cross tabs. But in any event, 1 single poll does not public opinion make.

This new poll was done by one of the Boston NPR stations, so might be considered bogus. NPR is definitely not in the business of endorsing Romney, so why would they do a poll to make his program look good?

Simple, to get O’bama re-elected. So they had to ask the right kind of questions to the right kind of people to get the desired poll result.

You all know the reason the Repugs won’t pass this is because they are all RACISTTTSSSSS! We should raise the tax to 95 percent as well as the one on capital gains. Oh estate tax raise that to 95 percent too, if dead people vote they should pay taxes too. Damn non profits, effem 95% tax on all their non profit profit.

If their is any profit left we seize those profits and find ways to funnel them off to the Dem donors via fake green energy companies and untested vaccines. Don’t worry kids all the high end Dem donors will have waivers and they will tell us how they wish to pay more. Now that’s reform, the Dem way!

sesquipedalianism
noun
The practice of using long, sometimes obscure, words in speech or writing.
A word that is a foot-and-a-half long; a very long word.
Etymology: From Latin sesquipedalis, a foot and a half long, or, in metaphorical use, of an unnatural length, huge, big, from sesqui, one and a half times as great + pedalis, foot.

The reality of the corporate tax code is that between 2002 and 2011, Boeing reported to its investors that it earned $31.8 billion. But it reported something entirely different to the IRS and didn’t pay income taxes. Instead, it received tax benefits of $2.06 billion, an effective tax rate of -6.5% (CTJ fact sheet). Other companies were similarly agile. Bailed-out GE earned $10.5 billion, paid zero taxes, and received $4.7 billion in tax benefits. Of 280 companies that the CTJ researched (report), 30 paid no federal income taxes from 2008-2010. They were all using loopholes, subsidies, and offshore strategies to do what the tax code encouraged them to do: dodge taxes.

So now, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is ballyhooing President Obama’s latest election-year ploy of putting some fresh lipstick on the tax code: lower the top rate from 35% to 28%, close loopholes, cut subsidies, and make offshore profit-shifting strategies more difficult. Then, in the same breath, he proposed new loopholes and subsidies but for different constituencies, such as manufacturers…. Oh wait. Aren’t Boeing and GE manufacturers? But they’re already not paying taxes. So hand them even more tax benefits?

BTW, the 60 billion payroll tax has been effectively wiped out by gas price increases. Most Americans probably won’t notice this however except when they anecdotally wonder why they get less for more.

The reality of the corporate tax code is that between 2002 and 2011, Boeing reported to its investors that it earned $31.8 billion. But it reported something entirely different to the IRS and didn’t pay income taxes. Instead, it received tax benefits of $2.06 billion, an effective tax rate of -6.5% (CTJ fact sheet). Other companies were similarly agile. Bailed-out GE earned $10.5 billion, paid zero taxes, and received $4.7 billion in tax benefits. Of 280 companies that the CTJ researched (report), 30 paid no federal income taxes from 2008-2010. They were all using loopholes, subsidies, and offshore strategies to do what the tax code encouraged them to do: dodge taxes.

So now, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is ballyhooing President Obama’s latest election-year ploy of putting some fresh lipstick on the tax code: lower the top rate from 35% to 28%, close loopholes, cut subsidies, and make offshore profit-shifting strategies more difficult. Then, in the same breath, he proposed new loopholes and subsidies but for different constituencies, such as manufacturers…. Oh wait. Aren’t Boeing and GE manufacturers? But they’re already not paying taxes. So hand them even more tax benefits?

BTW, the 60 billion payroll tax has been effectively wiped out by gas price increases. Most Americans probably won’t notice this however except when they anecdotally wonder why they get less for more.